“I see the emphasis of Republicans over the past 30 to 40 years not as a goal to do away with compromise as much as a goal to do away with government itself in favor of the private sector whereby business and profit thrives but government does not. I call that a goal whereby self-interest thrives over service to the common good which government can provide.

In that sense, I see that Alexander Hamilton’s ideas of business and status of hierarchy trying to prevail over Thomas Jefferson’s ideas of egalitarianism and service to the common good. Of course, everyone on this blog knows that I support the ideas of Jefferson over those of Hamilton, although I believe both have their place in helping this republic to continue. Jefferson’s ideas of service, egalitarianism and liberty for all, without regard to status, as a human right must prevail over Hamilton’s ideas of business and status (which Trump now embraces) if the ideals of this nation’s Founding Fathers prevail. Compromise goes without saying, but it was not the overriding idea of the Revolutionary War to establish compromise as the essential element in this nation, and its legacy, as I ascertain the intent of our Founding Fathers. That is why the presidential election of 1800 between Adams and Jefferson was critical to the trajectory that this nation would take. Ironically, Hamilton’s support of Jefferson over VP Democratic choice, Aaron Burr, in a run-off for President, after Adams had lost to Jefferson, insured that Jefferson’s democratic, lack of hierarchical views would prevail in America over hierarchical values. Compromise was not what created that trajectory for America. It was the force of Jefferson’s commitment to his ideas of personal liberty for all and egalitarianism for all that prevailed over Adams’ and then Burr to have won the presidential election of 1800 by the ordinary common people who leaned toward Jefferson over Adams.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My responses to various other posters on Bookman’s thread, above:

“That is what happens (‘Republicans are the Party of No, even to themselves’) when one’s basic ideology is exclusion, not inclusion.

On the other hand, the Democratic Party, for all of its failures and time taken for racial evolution, has been the party, traditionally, of inclusion, not exclusion, and, thus, the party of ‘Yes’ instead of ‘No’ as in Obama’s Call to Action – ‘Yes, we can.’ ”

—————————————

“As per my longer entry below, I would remind all that Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the original Democratic Party, then called the Democratic-Republican Party, the people’s party, which morphed into the Democratic Party established by Andrew Jackson, whom ironically, again, Jefferson did not think worthy enough to be a President of the United States.”
—————————————-

Another Poster to Mary Elizabeth:

“Jefferson was a slave owner, so no credibility”

——————————————–
Mary Elizabeth’s response to that poster:

“You think in limited cliches, with no personal depth of individuals and their multifaceted choices, nor within historical context.
As a result, you have no idea who Thomas Jefferson was.”
———————————————
Mary Elizabeth:
“I believe that time (1856) was just prior to the time when Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican President of the United States (1860), and that Republican Party which Lincoln headed carried many aspects of today’s Democratic Party.”
——————————————–

Jay Bookman’s comments in response to a third poster:

“Judging from history, there is no such thing as a viable third party in American politics. The few third parties that have succeeded have quickly displaced an existing party, returning the system to its two-party equilibrium.

The institution that functions as that ‘third party’ is Congress, where moderates from both parties can explore common ground and act accordingly.”
————————————————

Mary Elizabeth’s response to Jay Bookman’s comment immediately above:

“Well perceived.”
———————————————–

Jay Bookman: “The few third parties that have succeeded have quickly displaced an existing party, returning the system to its two-party equilibrium.”

“I believe that time (1856) was just prior to the time when Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican President of the United States (1860), and that Republican Party which Lincoln headed carried many aspects of today’s Democratic Party.”
——————————————

2 Responses to Republican Ideology of Exclusion Over the Past 40 Years

We need to establish a situation of cooperation for mutual benefit, not one where the rights and interests of some are sacrificed to the perceived interests of others. You and I disagree on which approach will give which result.
My view is: True laissez-faire capitalism allows and encourages voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. The use of government force sacrifices the rights and interests of some to the perceived interests of others, and creates pressure-group warfare over who will have to sacrifice what for the sake of whose perceived interests.

Perhaps, through implication, you can see why I feel the way I do that government must ensure ALL of its citizens rights to education, healthcare, and that the general welfare of the entire populace must be safeguarded:

“Think about the above essay by Jay Bookman in relation to the words in Dr. John B. Boles’ recently published biography of Thomas Jefferson, entitled, “Jefferson: Architect of American Liberty,” on pages 68 and 70 of Boles’ book:

‘Various reprintings of the declaration have ended the sentence with the word ‘happiness.’ Jefferson had not done so; he did not intend his text to limit the self-evident: that governments derive their powers from the consent of the people, that governments are instituted to promote the people’s basic rights, and that, if they fail to do so, the people have the right to alter or abolish them. With consummate artistry, Jefferson summarized years of thinking and political philosophizing in about two hundred words. The whole is organized as a rational argument. In view of the unalienable rights of the people and the fact that governments are supposed to promote those rights, it logically follows that when governments do not, they deserve to be changed.’ “